Frank, I've listened to this. You did a good job of putting it together.

I thought most of the comments were pretty good, although Betsy still doesn't understand that she grossly oversold the $300,000 plan. Also, she's very quick to blame the problems on others, but she was notably unable to manage the situation. I've basically had her & Jim reporting to me, separately, for the past year, because of their inability to communicate.

Good job.

Regards,

Fred Haney
Award winning author of My Doggie Says...: Messages from Jamie.
How a dog named Jamie "talks" to her people.
Does your dog talk to you?
http://www.mydoggiesays.com
Read Fred's Blog:
http://www.mydoggiesays.wordpress.com

Oh man, what an great topic! I can't remember a time when I was this eager to download and listen to a podcast. Maybe because there is that personal fear that this could happen to me or because I remember listening to your original podcast with them. I remember hearing the enthusiasm and excitement in their tone as they were on top of the world. It's probably a combination of the two.

Thank you for this controversial topic.

-Lary Stucker (subject, podcast #84)

Frank, let these people know I may be able to help

Sincerely,

Lou Volpano
Managing Partner
ascertain►ment
Entertainment and Media Industry | Research and Strategic Analysis
949.999.0810 | 260 Newport Center Drive | Suite 100 | Newport Beach, California | 92660
www.ascertain-ment.com | fax 949.999.0868

This is simply an outstanding concept.
Nice job, Frank.

Frank, as you may recall, I teach Marketing at UCI and run a fast-growing marketing agency so I have a true appreciation for really good marketing. You have outdone yourself here. This is a beautiful work! Note I sent it to my team (below) as an example of on target marketing. Your email was exciting to read.

C

Team, this is a great example of:

1. Excellent headline - very provocative
2. Outstanding content - discusses subject everyone wants to know about but nobody who's experienced it wants to talk about
3. Killer copy - engaging, even riveting (he gets perspective of both partners who are no longer talking to each other?!)

Frank, whom I know from OCVG and Tech Coast Angels, is a first-rate, one-man marketing machine!

C

I will make time to hear this one Frank.
It sounds really intriguing.

John P. Schmid (subject, podcast #70)
Chief Financial Officer
Trius Therapeutics, Inc. (formerly Rx3 Pharmaceuticals)

This certainly sounds like a great show.
Cannot wait to hear it.

Eric

Blue C Communications
www.bluecusa.com

That's a courageous and interesting show concept!
Could be a whole spin-off for you.
Augustus

What a great intro, and sounds like a subject that every entrepreneur needs to know about.

As I was saying before you hung up on me, we represent Media Matchmaker. We are concerned about a recent posting on your site "Media Matchmaker: autopsy of a failed start-up." The title itself is defamatory as it falsely suggests that the company is defunct. Moreover, as an apparently disgruntled investor and creditor in the company with apparent allegiance to other investors and creditors, you are acting with conflicted interests. Further, you illegally taped the CEO of the company without her consent, in violation of the laws of the State of California. See Cal. Penal Code Section 632.

The company, its CEO and the investors have been damaged, and some investors already have expressed significant concern about your conduct. You are have now been placed on notice of your improper conduct, and any continued posting of the story will demonstrate -- without any possible question whatsoever -- that your conduct was intentional and malicious.

This email is being sent with a full reservation of all rights.

Gregg Zucker

DLA Piper US LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, Fourth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-6022

310.595.3022 T
310.595.3322 F
gregg.zucker@dlapiper.com

Re. Mr. Zucker's comment, the Section 632 isn't even applicable here, because (a) the interview was done with CEO's consent (she says so during the interview) and (b) the communication was not confidential (See the definition of "confidential Communication" in Section 632(c)).

It does not seem that Mr. Zucker has listened to the interview, especially the last few minutes of it. The CEO, is looking for additional 500k funding and says "... and may be this interview will help us (find the funding)!" (See at 53:45) I think this particular statement is an affirmative consent for taping and broadcasting within the "four corners of the documents" or in this case, within the "four bits of the mp3".

So, please, stop waving Section 632 gun! It is as effective as a wet noodle.

Its been exactly 400 years since Shakespeare talked about shooting the messenger in Anthony and Cleopatra. Alas, some people have learned nothing in the intervening years.

Frank, this is one of the better podcasts you have done. It was gripping, it was educational, stories were told from the heart, and the part that I really appreciated was that it captured the essence of each person you interviewed.

Funny thing is that I really really liked Betsy's interview. She came across as a fire cracker, go getter. Hope she starts another company soon, I see success written all over it.

I just wanted to drop you a quick note on this show, it was really very well done and tremendously informative. I am sometimes a little slow on the uptake on these things, but it sure seems like these two had a romantic relationship that went south. Is that right, & did they disclose that relationship prior to the investment? Do you now have to ask founding partners those questions?

Gene

Your deconstruction of the Media Matchmaker failure is classic and great listening. Betsy seems defensive, angry and way too optimistic. The rest seemed reasonable and addressed the issues well. Do more like this.

Dave

I did listen...

You are a great interviewer.

Luis

Very good job Frank!

As one with first hand knowledge of the activities from day one, I second Fred Haney's comments.

The business plan and budget presented to the investors at the time of the first investment showed revenue generation in month five and reaching break-even on the $300K initial investment.

Jim Mahoney presented a good summary of the problems in the business model.

Dan Posilovich's comments were right on! Frank Singer's comments about acceptance of the risks in this type investment were very appropriate.

See Toni's blog, BizOrigin, for more commentary...

Frank,
Thanks for the pointer (above). I did write a post on my blog, about the drama around your posting this interview.

I support your decision to not remove this post from your blog. I have encountered these types of situations, and have asked the question, does the world benefit more from having the post published, than from not having it published. Clearly, in this case, there is more benefit with than without.

Again, great work!

Toni

I listened to this podcast the other day -- fascinating, sobering, and a bit scary. Your shows are really good. Take care, Marie

So here is a different perspective, from some one who had the checkbook in hand but never invested in Media Match Maker. Well, frankly I am not that smart, I just get lucky once in a while.

The idea was absolutely great, it was a scalable, make money while you sleep proposition. So what alarmed me? As some other people have mentioned, the total amount raised was not sufficient to effectively brand the effort. I don't think even $1M or $2M would have done the trick.

The issue for me was the notion of giving it away free for a while. If the value proposition is right, people will pay for it. As for the team, Jim and Betsy were very very nice people, but they clearly confused efforts and results.

From an investor's perspective, failure is a part of the game. There are no perfect deals. At the end of the day, the odds are companies with experienced entrepreneurs have a higher chance of success and this effort I am sure has made both Jim and Betsy a little more experienced!

You always ask for feedback from your listeners, so here's my 2 cents.

As a listener, I found the podcast on Media Matchmaker Autopsy interesting and engaging.

However, as an investor and TCA member, I frankly found it upsetting, in that such public coverage sabotages any hope (however slim that might be) that Betsy can pull off a deal with a third party that at least salvages some value for investors. Thus it would appear to be bad for investors, and a bad precedent for TCA. FYI, some TCA members have mentioned to me that they felt it was particularly inappropriate given your role as TCA Chairman, in which you have a fiduciary responsibility to look after the interests of TCA and TCA investors. That needs to come ahead of your efforts to build your podcast listener base.

So I would hope in the future you would exercise more discretion, and only declare "autopsies" once the subject company is "dead", has shuttered its doors and there is no hope of redemption.

John

Excellent show... I guess we have the eternal optimist vs. the pragmatist. I know from experience that online services in the food processing industry that try to bring supplers together with manufacturers have not been successful except in small niche markets because of supplier consolidation and the desire by the manufacturer to protect their turf and make sure they are in control.

Joe

Loved the podcast

Mike